Howard-Hill, Trevor Howard2012-01-312022-11-012012-01-312022-11-0119561956https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/handle/123456789/27448In this study evidence is brought forward to suggest that these conclusions about the 1609 Pericles quartos are correct: The quartos are dated from the title-pages (which are identical for [Q1] and [Q2]), and bibliographical, textual, and orthographical links suggest that [Q1] is a page-for-page reprint of [Q2]. For [Q2], a manuscript copy-text is indicated by certain textual variants but although there is a large group of possible Shakespearean copy-spellings, no conclusive evidence suggests that the copy-text was written out by Shakespeare. Pericles appears to be a memorial reconstruction of a play in which Shakespeare wrote at least the last three acts. Although bibliographical evidence suggests compositor-division at two points, study of the spellings shows that there was only one compositor; printing proceeded in alphabetical order of sheets. It seems that a break in printing occurred at the end of sheet D; this corresponds to the division of copy into Shakespearean and non-Shakespearean portions, and lineation similarly suggests that the copy of the two portions was different in layout. [Q1] was set up by two compositors, and probably printed in two printing-houses. From the division of the copy-text, the distribution of headlines, and the printing of sheet B after sheet I, [Q1] is a reprint.pdfen-NZWilliam ShakespeareEnglishPericlesText